On Linux/x86, revision 194082 gave FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C -O2 AddressSanitizer_BitFieldPositiveTest x->bf1 = 0 execution test FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C -O2 AddressSanitizer_BitFieldPositiveTest x->bf2 = 0 execution test FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C -O2 AddressSanitizer_BitFieldPositiveTest x->bf3 = 0 execution test FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C -O2 AddressSanitizer_BitFieldPositiveTest x->bf4 = 0 execution test FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C -O2 AddressSanitizer_BuiltinLongJmpTest execution test FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C -O2 AddressSanitizer_FileNameInGlobalReportTest Ident(p[15]) execution test FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C -O2 AddressSanitizer_GlobalStringConstTest Ident(p[15]) execution test FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C -O2 AddressSanitizer_GlobalTest fs2[Ident(-1)] = 0 execution test FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C -O2 AddressSanitizer_GlobalTest func_static15[Ident(15 + 9)] = 0 execution test FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C -O2 AddressSanitizer_GlobalTest func_static15[Ident(15)] = 0 execution test FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C -O2 AddressSanitizer_GlobalTest static110[Ident(110)] = 0 execution test FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C -O2 AddressSanitizer_GlobalTest static110[Ident(110+7)] = 0 execution test FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C -O2 AddressSanitizer_LongJmpTest execution test FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C -O2 AddressSanitizer_SigLongJmpTest execution test FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C -O2 AddressSanitizer_SignalTest *c = 0 output pattern test, should match AddressSanitizer: SEGV on unknown address FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C -O2 AddressSanitizer_SignalTest *c = 0 output pattern test, should match AddressSanitizer: SEGV on unknown address FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C -O2 AddressSanitizer_ThreadStackReuseTest execution test FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C -O2 AddressSanitizer_ThreadedTest ThreadedTestSpawn() output pattern test, should match Thread T.*created.*Thread T.*created.*Thread T.*created
I have them too.
Everybody has them, I've said in the mail containing the patch that there are a few unanalyzed failures, and what the reasons for some of those failures are (e.g. not instrumenting bitfields yet).
> Everybody has them, I've said in the mail containing the patch that there are a > few unanalyzed failures, and what the reasons for some of those failures are > (e.g. not instrumenting bitfields yet). Ah, sorry. You can XFAIL them in the meantime though, adding testcases that don't pass is a bit weird in my opinion.
HJ, can we close this?
Fixed.